Posted on 08/09/2015 11:06:27 AM PDT by Old Yeller
The Bible never speaks of a place where one can go to be purified of his sin. Rather, it always speaks of a Person to whom we can go to be purified: Jesus Christ. God tells us that those who refuse to trust Christ to cleanse them from their sins are condemned: Whoever believes in Him avoids condemnation, but whoever does not believe is already condemned for not believing in the name of God's only Son (John 3:18). There are only two choices: Whoever believes in the Son has life eternal. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God (John 3:36; See also Revelation 20:15; Luke 16:19-31, especially verse 26). Anyone who accepts Christ is completely saved: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Saying that there is no condemnation, certainly eliminates the flames of purgatory.
Another passage which clearly excludes the idea of purgatory is, their sins and transgressions I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:17). If, as the Bible says, God no longer remembers the sins of those who are in Christ, He does not punish them for these sins. To do so would be saying that Christ had not made full payment for them and that God the Father still remembered them. (See also Romans 5:8-11; Hebrews 10:14-18; Psalm 103:12).
Anyone who does not believe that Christ has completely saved him, has not completely trusted Christ to save him. That is, he does not believe that Christ's sacrifice has paid for all of his sins, and thinks he must pay for some of them himself. However, we are saved when we stop trusting what we can do, and start trusting Christ to save us.
The idea that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to cleanse us from all of our sins would condemn a great sinner such as the thief who was crucified with Jesus to suffer a long time in purgatory if not for all eternity in hell! Instead, there was nothing left over that Christ's death on the Cross did not cover. When the thief placed his trust in Christ, Jesus said to him, I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).
If purgatory existed, and the mass helped people to get out, the rich would have a tremendous advantage by being able to pay for masses to shorten their suffering. The poor instead, would be left to the mercy of the occasional priest who might say an unpaid mass for them. One ex-priest wrote, "If we really believed that the mass would save people from the flames of purgatory, would we make them pay for it? I would even save a dog if I saw one in a fire, and I would never even think of asking to be paid!"
Purgatory was evidently a pagan idea. Virgil, the pagan Latin poet who lived 70 - 19 B.C. divided the departed souls into three different places in his writings: One for the good, one for the damned, and a third where the less bad could pay for their sins. Since the idea of purgatory existed outside of the church before it came into the church, it is probable that it was brought in by contact with pagans like Virgil. There was a great influx of non-Biblical ideas into the church around 300 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine took many unsaved people in as members of the church.
In any event, there is no mention of purgatory in the Bible. Some would try, however, to make the idea sound somewhat Biblical by referring to 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, a passage in one of the apocryphal books written between the times of the Old and New Testaments. These books were never accepted as part of the Hebrew Old Testament, nor quoted in the New Testament, but they are included in the Catholic Bible, though usually with an explanation that they are of a less inspired category. Apart from this passage in 2 Maccabees, the apocrypha is little used by the Catholic church to support a doctrinal position.
It is important to notice that this passage does not speak of purgatory at all, but actually condemns idolatry, particularly the practice of wearing little images on a necklace or such. Hebrew soldiers were found wearing this sort of thing after a battle, and their buddies, on making this discovery, realized that they had died in the sin of idolatry. They then counseled prayer for their souls. The Roman Catholic position is that prayer for them would have been unnecessary if they were in heaven and useless if they were in hell, so there must be another place. The logic seems good, but the result contradicts the clear teaching of the inspired Scripture. Contradicting inspired Scripture with a philosophical response based on an apparent inference from the Apocrypha is a very weak argument indeed. The very word "Apocrypha," which comes from the Greek word for hidden, has come to mean "false," or "of doubtful authorship."
Still waiting!
Still waiting on this simple request.
“14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”
Hold this thought...
This is why many (most) people do not even understand what is done through me.
I ask the same questions Jesus asked when He was accused of doing satan’s work... Would satan cast out satan? Can a house divided against itself stand? If the result is that the fruits of the Holy spirit manifest in more people, how can it be bad?
You raise a good point about the illegitimacy of the children... But
If I was invited and attended a wedding that was later determined to be illegitimate, then do I get the toaster back?
Historical knowledge
?? What do you mean "historical knowledge?"
I’m left scratching my head that someone makes a direct personal attack on you and it is allowed to remain up, but where I addre4ssed someone I believe is being deceived by demonic forces that post is yanked. Interesting times at FR!
You aren't Jesus, so the relationship is not even int hesame ballpark, and how can you know you are actually casting away demons and not being deceived by said demons to believe you cast them away?
Clearly the magicsteeringthem is able to make legitimate the children born in a marriage the magicsteeringthem declares was never ‘a valid marriage’. We are not surprised that they would take such authority upon themselves in that religion.
"Ha!" I say.
"Ha!" I say again.
Of course the tangled contortions of Catholic rules and regulations are not going to call the children "illegitimate."
But logically, there's a problem: Little Suzie has to 'splain that the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" calls the marriage of her biological father and mother: voided, expunged, never existed, it was a "mulligan" ("Paging Father Mulligan!"), never happened, not real, not accepted, annulled, annihilated, invalid, without merit, spiritually empty, unrecognizable, not a marriage at all, not a sacrament, "I dood" but not did.
...And where's my toaster refund?
You said “magicsteeringthem”
I laughed.
Do not continue to ask the same question multiple time.
If there is no answer then no answer IS the answer.
The marriage is not valid but the children are still legitimate?
How to have your cake and eat it too.
No contortions at all just basic ignorance of civil law versus Sacramental marriage.
Don’t you get it? Illegitimately legitimate.
Keep up, would you!
And if that does not work for you, just try annulling an Annulment. :-)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You're a nice fella but the pigeons are beating you.
By your distinction the difference is easy to see. If a magistrate performs the service -it's a legal contract. If a priest performs the spiritual service, complete with a Mass, then it's a "licit" marriage.
Unless... It's not.
Man they’ve got some rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.